Hey, I don't know what happened. I just submitted my third edit here and realized nothing was aside my avatar. What the??? My long initial answer and my previous two edits all gone, vanished. Maybe I reached some text quota or something...I tried to paste, but that didn't work...Sorrrrrrryyyyy. Not sure what I did??? Weird, weird, weird. That's too bad :-(...Anyway.....
EDIT 3: I couldn’t get the full text on-line of that 1992 study. Darn.
Seems there have been studies using positron emission tomography regarding sexual orientation and hypothalamic neuronal processes. Also, neurochemical differences....A nice, but old (New England Journal of Medicine, 1994) meta-analysis regarding “cure”:
“Studies of changes in sexual orientation have varied in quality, and there are no adequate long-term outcome data. Many men who view themselves as homosexual have actually been attracted to women at some time during their lives. In this group, the homosexual-heterosexual mental balance may sometimes shift during therapy. The meaning attributed to sexual fantasies in determining the sense of identity may also change, so that the person may come to believe that his or her sexual orientation has changed. Homosexual fantasies often persist, however, or recur. Among homosexual men who have never experienced sexual attraction to women, there is little evidence that permanent replacement of homosexual fantasies by heterosexual ones is possible”
Not sure what has been done since then. I got lots of incidental hits on the “ethics of research into homosexuality”. Interesting. Wonder if there has been a more recent, up-to-date meta-analytic attempt....And, of course I’m just relying on abstracts here. Haven’t read the entire studies to glean whether they’re any good or not. Just basic info, I’m taking with a grain of salt. I don’t know much in this area, but maybe will read into the methodology and results of some of these when I have more time....
Yes, I think a study needs to demonstrate face validity and one other measurable form, plus statistical reliability. I want to see that. There are statistical controls that allow one to have some objectivity, I think. I do see a tendency to write up the discussion more "conclusively-conjecturally" compared to that which was actually demonstrated. So, what is conjecture gets mixed up with what was actually demonstrated...But, perhaps that has more to do with the prestige of a “break though”/contribution, is an effort to get a positive slant with a journal’s review board or, like you say (if this is what you meant), a confirmation of beliefs/biases or even formal hypotheses that the person poured their energy into and personally support??
All research must be situated in previous literature though. It all exists in a paradigmatic reality (I really like Kuhn’s 1970 explanation of this). So, potential problems lie in interpretation, I guess....I think a rock-hard meta-analysis should be a necessary and frequent endeavour....but, there are even problems with that....Can’t get around human error even with safe-guards against statistical forms (i.e., Type I and Type II)....
Anywazzzz,
yeah, my advisor. Man, don’t even get me started on that guy. You’ve said too much already :-). A little empathy and that's enough to get me fired up. I can go on and on and on about how much of an as$ he is. I have no choice but to work with the guy (AND, be nice AND bite my tongue....sometimes 'till it bleeds) until I’m done, so I will have strong feelings about him until then....I will likely forget that he even exists afterwards....and, whoa, he has been mean, screwed me over regarding money, manipulated me...he’s a horrible human being. K, I’ll stop.
K, so really going now. I mean it this time! :-) :-). Gotta eat and get some work done. I think I will be up really, really late. Sorry that I lost all
the info from my previous posts. *Tears*. Kidding.
EDIT 4: Cool. Thanx for prompting me to learn something...yet again :-). I'll check back tomorrow in case you want to talk some more...Goodnight, my friend!!
HI PSYCHIC CAT!!! Yes, Mdgreg C and I were yacking about that; touched on that, a little more indirectly, in a discussion we had about homosexuality and heterosexuality existing on a continuum. And, how ridiculous it is for the hetero tail of the distribution to be determing what is appropriate when it is all normal under the curve and all relative from a particular stance. Also, fear, ignorance. All that. Most of my post got deleted somehow though, which kinda sucks. You have put what we have discussed most simply though. Good point!! Succint. Your points are always good though :-).
EDIT 5: about the DSM and video games. I haven't heard that proposal. I know that there are different diagnoses for dependence and abuse, but I didn't think there were qualifications by substance. I don't have the manual. Hmmmm. Whether "addiction" to video games is different than others, like drugs or alcohol, I really don’t know. I would think that there are both similarities and differences. I’m sure there are many gradations between substances. Worthy of special status in the DSM though?? Hmmmm. Perhaps different only because it is more of a compulsion than a physiological and psychological addiction. It’s tactile and it's an endeavour really and I think that would differentiate it from drugs or alcohol....but, both likely evoke a similar physiological response. I will look something up later because I don’t really know for sure. Where did you see this?
The second comment you make?? True, true, true. This has certainly been MY personal experience anyhow. ALL of my problems were organic in nature, but weren't easy to diagnose, so I was initially labelled and sent on my Mary-way with a handful of Paxil. But, you know I'm a pushy, pushy little girl...even when I'm sick. So, I went through many doctors and did much of my own research to get the help I needed. But, saw many doctor's like the one's you describe in the meantime and took pills I didn't need, was prescribed too much of one pill (and was in the hospital), and had side effect from those I actually took. I have peripheral neuropathy from one....still! Labels? Side effects? All the while not feeling heard, not being helped, and a nice life going down the drain? It wasn't a cool time.
Even after, at the end of it all, these "doctors" still held onto their "astute diagnoses", claiming that it was part of the solution, treating the presenting symptomology helped lead to an organic diagnosis. At least, that is what they claim. The former is a lie, and the latter, well, that's a lie too! My problem was defined by them as a non-physical one or was misdiagnosed (depending on the doctor), it wasn't on the way to a physical diagnosis. And, it did NOT lead to a physically-based diagnosis because each gave up after treating the "presenting symptomology"....But, you know, I thought I'd go back and see them, maybe teach them something about a "zebra presentation" of this and that. But, they weren't listening...I sometimes joke that I could be living in a mansion instead a bachelor apartment if I only had enough money to sue :-) :-). Their position can always be justified so even if I were serious about sueing, which I'm not, I doubt I'd get very far.
I'm sure this happens to a lot of people and actually DOES ruin lives...or worse yet, there are people who have serious physical illnesses but are walking around thinking they have clinical anxiety or something...or, end up with BOTH; a psychological illness due to unrelenting physical pain, then emotional, social, financial, and cognitive difficulties that arise with mislabels and misdiagnoses....Given these occurrences, one can *almost* understand why some people absolutely fear getting sick or won't even go to doctors or negatively generalize about "doctors" from these experiences.
Is this what you meant?? Should I have been less anecdotal here and have mentioned something I've read??
Anyway, must get going here. I will have a look at something on video games and addiction later, later k?....
EDIT 6: Wow, well I guess I can relate to that too. In one instance, in my experience, a doctor disagreed with some of the others and said I needed surgery...which, by the way, kinda saved me. But, my GP and a previous specialist I had seen before seemed to think the guy was nuts. So, so frustrating. And, you know even though I am strong, all these experiences have damaged my confidence and affected my life in significant ways. Not all bad, I guess though. I am a different and more learned person now...and, hey other people, I'm sure have had cruddier experiences with greater impacts. So, no need to whine :-).
I don't get MSNBC. Basic cable in my house :-) :-). I'll see what I can find on video game addiction...
K, just did a quick search and it seems like criteria witin the DSM-IV has been used to devise a juvenile arcade video game scale that identifies video game addiction in adolescents. Recent study has focussed on the factorial validity and internal consistency reliability of it.
So, the DSM-IV already includes criteria. And, it suggests that arcade video game playing in a *some* adolescents is similar to pathological gambling. So, I guess justifiably different in terms of specificity or psychological and social impact...more of a compulsion compared to drug or alcohol addictions??....The criteria as well other study suggests video game addiction is a subjective experience, but can be characterized as an irresistable need to play, entails negative behaviour or feeling states consequent on this need that spill over into everyday social experiences---this is kind of obvious in my mind though...
EDIT 7: Physical, Psychological and Physical+Psychological? That makes sense between individuals where one or both is prominent in a particular person. Hmmm, but, doesn't what is psychological have to affect you physically somehow and what affects you physically have to affect you psychologically somehow? I took a class that touched on alcohol addiction and I know that a combo of drugs and cog-beh therapy was most effective, empirically anyhow. Not sure if that is sufficient to lend support to a hypotheis that addiction is necessarily psychological AND physical. I'm certainly not an addiction expert though....Ask me about dreams, fears, identity, statistical analysis, adolescent risk, prevention of many things, basic info on psychological contructs, measures or emotional/social/cognitve developmental issues...then I can definitely tell you. But, haven't studied addiction in depth and the class I took was a long time ago and maybe some of the knowledge I recall has been refuted....I wonder how video game addiction fits into this then. Probably psychological but with physiological feeds or reinforcement or impacts? I don't know. Interesting...
EDIT 8: You mean, someone can look back without the physical longing and psychologically reflect on the memory as a partially pleasant one?? Or, were you making a joke?? I laughed and then wasn't sure if you were joking or not...Man, text sucks sometimes--facial expression and gestures help a great deal. Yup, that's my excuse for being "thick" here...What the heck did you mean?
EDIT 9: ahhhhhh, now I think I get ya. So, just teasing out types of addiction. Ok :-). And, yes, any memory has a physiological effect.
EDIT 10: *Whew*, that is over my head, for sure. But, don't be so hard on yourself. That can't help.
Sometimes I think and think and read and think and read only to end up getting everything so muddled, that I can't make sense of out anything anymore. Can you talk about it? Usually I talk (or ramble) and then the ball of thoughts all crammed tightly in my head loosen or give way and I usually get some clarity.
Can you take a break from it for a while?
I also write out all my thoughts, even if incoherent, then stop thinking, then get rid of everything from general towards specific in an effort to simplify what I need to know or find, or as a way to figure out what's missing, or the direction I need to be going in.
Is there a prototype available regarding something similar? I know for regression interactions I have to look at an example of one using different variables and coeffcients to keep it all straight in my mind. I find them that complicated. I don't know if your work on this is like that or not...
I am adding a prof's feedback into this paper I'm writing...boring. I'm almost finished though. I try and take it easy on Friday's. Not at all complicated though. I love complicated....usually. There's a challenge, so much fun.
Anywazzzz, I hope you figure it all out. I have the utmost confidence in ya. Brilliance? Diligence? Hey, what else do ya need huh?
EDIT 11: Hmmmm, I will have to look something up. I've never heard of either model. I actually thought you were just telling me what you were working on for work or something else and wasn't sure either had to do with addiction. What's with the misunderstandings on my part? *Sheesh*. Anyway, I can see how addiction would be responsible for many things. I would think everything or every person an addicts life touches is impacted by it. I wonder whether we're all not addicted to something though. Like, perhaps each of us fits into the tail end of the addiction continuum regarding something or even someone....Ahhh, anyway, I'm just rambling now. TTYL :-) :-).
EDIT 12: Well, in terms of the "receptor model" and "homeostasis model"?? All I really know is that opioid receptors underlie addiction and variations (in site) alter the expression level of the receptors in neurones. I also recall that DA (i.e., dopamine) plays a role in some addictions and is a target in terms of pharmacotherapy. Not sure whether/how these specifics play into what each model encapsulates.
Honestly, this is all I know. I did a BA in Criminology/Psych and an MA in Developmental Psych and the PhD is in Developmental Psych. I took one pharmacology class at the MA level and one one brain-based parapsychology course.
Have you just finished your schooling, have been working in the field for a while now, or are you retired? Just curious, but of course, none of my business.
I had to think about what you said in saying addiction can be seen as almost everything. But, I think I see what you mean. At a base level of what addiction is and how it can be defined, I can see how this would be true.
EDIT 13: I really don't know if it is the final pathway. Most drugs of misuse (except benzodiazepines) increase dopamine in the mesolimbic dopaminergic system, so facilitating addiction?? That's about all I, uhhh, think I know. I'll look something up here....
Hmmm, seems that it is widely accepted that increased levels of dopamine in the nucleus accumbens are key in mediating the rewarding effects or positive reinforcement of drugs of misuse. But, it seems like evidence is still accruing to support this? For instance, (and this is stripped right from an abstract): "alcohol and morphine are no longer rewarding in mice lacking the D2 receptor. In humans, a series of neuroimaging studies showed that using cocaine or methylphenidate that increased dopamine levels in the brain were associated with euphoria and pleasure. Interestingly, low levels of dopamine D2 receptors were associated with pleasure after methylphenidate in drug-naive individuals, whereas high receptor levels were associated with unpleasant feelings".
Soooo, I don't know. LOL. Don't think that abstract quotation helped. Seems like DA is key in reward, but maybe tolerance, withdrawal, dependence involves primarily something else. But, doesn't even seem like we definitely know how DA is implicated in addiction, so final pathway? Pfft, so if this isn't known, not sure how knowing whether it is a final pathway could be gleaned....Anyway, this stuff was known in 2003, so maybe more work has been done in the area?? I don't know. Couldn't readily find anything more recent...
So, you have an MD and MS. Holy cow man! Good for you!!! :-) :-).
Just did some more skimming here. Seems like the target (if that's what you mean by final pathway) depends on the drug. Sedatives and alcohol--GABAergic system ad glutematergic system; ectasy--5-HT. I feel as I'm writing about this that I am missing some basic info taught in science classes.
Maybe you can make more sense of what I've written and it can help you if you take what you need or fill in what I'm not getting...
EDIT 14: I think so. At least, I think neuroleptics block DA D2 receptors. I think the dopamine hypothesis is probably the oldest. Less is known about others, but others are likely involved in schizophrenia, and in a complex way...
Hey, if neuroleptics block DA D2 and the reinforcement for drug addiction arises from increases in DA, would people taking neuroleptics be less susceptible to the reinforcement upon taking drugs of misuse that primarily target DA? I thought at least the opposite was true. Isn't schizophrenia often cormorbid with various addictions? Anyway, if there is no physical reinforcement (i.e., reinforcement via DA), would addiction even really be possible? Or, would addiction occur anyhow since other neurotransmitters are involved, therefore partial reinforcement?
Just thinking here....maybe the assumptions I've stated above aren't even valid....Anway, please don't feel obliged to answer this. I was just thinking perhaps this may be obvious to you. You seem to have a better understanding of this than I do...
EDIT 15: You mean the other way around right. Neuroleptics block D2 DA and drugs of misuse increased DA, so addiction would be higher in untreated schizophrenia and less in treated. Right? Or, am I mixing it up?
Anyway, about the stats? Oh heck no. All just derivation/conjecture. I wonder if there *is* anything to support this in the literature though...I may have to look it up...later :-).
EDIT 16: Functional disturbances in DA neurotransmitter systems are well-established correlates of the psychopathological symptoms and behavioral manifestations observed in both addiction AND schizophrenia (from one review in Cellular and Mollecular Life Sciences, V 63 (14); 2006).
In one exemplar study (Psychopharmacology, v 183 (4); 2006) there was a positive and significant relation between D-2 receptor occupancy following treatment with olanzapine (n=19) or risperidone (n=12) and the number of cigarettes smoked in three consecutive years (r=0.60, p<0.001) in patients who smoked. There was a significant difference in the percentage of D-2 occupancy for smokers (mean 74.3%, SD 12.8, n=31) and nonsmokers (mean 49.8%, SD 9.1, n=5). So, frequency of cigarette smoking in schizophrenic patients treated with antipsychotic medication is significantly and negatively related to the availability of striatal D2 receptors.
I'm not crazy about the sample size here. They only had 36 subjects?? so IV to cases ratio is violated (N greater or less than 50 + 8 m (suppose to be in italics and rep's IV's)). But, maybe only simple regression..if it was simple regression and "smoking" was a dummy variable and used to predict D2 availability....ahhh, anyhow...
Despite this, I shuffled through a couple other abstracts dealing with cannibis that essentially shows the same result, just a different substance. So, maybe a pretty reliable relationship.
Ok, so seems as though more D2 receptors are occupied with treatment, and the more one consumes drugs of misuse (e.g. here it is cigarettes), the less D2 receptors available. So, if you smoke and your schizophrenia symptoms are treated, there is less D-2 receptors available....so, kinda advantageous, in terms of reductions in symptoms, to use illicit drugs if you have schizophrenia right? Have I interpreted that correctly?
BTW: I see letting the imagination run wild as an excellent thing especially for publications--generating new hypotheses. You seem to be very research-aware/oriented as well....compared to the MD's I know personally. Do you spend any time publishing?
EDIT 17: Several studies suggest that caffeine intake is high in patients with schizophrenia and a few of them suggest that caffeine may contribute to schizophrenia symptomatology. But, I think the high amount of caffeine intake among patients with schizophrenia may be due to their high prevalence of smoking. Not sure if research has worked that out or not.
In terms of what you said here: "D1 receptor/D2 receptor activation seems to have contrary effects on cAmp? Well, I have no idea what that means. *Whew*, that went right over my head. cAmp? NO idea what that is. As you can see, this conversation is much more advantageous for me :-) :-). You're teaching me cool things :-) :-).
*Sheesh*, I wish I knew you better or that you were interested in publishing and you were interested in identity in adolescence. Your level of thought and its ecclectic nature is quite impressive. I'm working on a developmental trajectory of deviance. I initally got it rejected when I submitted it (I'll likely choose another journal for resubmission). The editors saw it as a theory but I was only trying to present a model. After I got the editorial feedback, I saw that it *does* read as a theory....and, of course falls short since this wasn't my intention. So, not sure if I want to re-propose it as a model or spend forever encapsulating all that is required in presenting a new theory....I'm just rambling here...
K, so I looked up some stuff and maybe this is what you meant: PDE4-mediated regulation of cAMP levels could also underlie the establishment of reward valence to abused drugs....but, since D1/D2 has contrary effects on cAMP, abused drugs would not necessarily help symptomology among treated schizophrenics??
Yup, still confused....I will wait for your message. How about I do that :-) :-).
EDIT 18: I laughed and laughed at Nileann's post. I can just see her reading and sighing and rolling her eyes. Hilarious.
Just checking things quick here. Perhaps Bipoloar and schizophrenia are cormorbid disorders. I doubt it though. I'll have a look at the wikipedia site later on this evening. Just on my way out here. I'll see if I can find anything regarding the distribution of D1/D2 also....
EDIT 19: Schizoaffective disorder is thought to unify schizophrenia and bipolar, and arose in 1933. It's still being applied but current research shows that schizoaffective disorder is not a separate, 'bona-fide' disease. Patients diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder likely suffer from a psychotic mood disorder. Interreliability for diagnosing schizaffective disorder is pretty low. There are arguments that the diagnosis should be eliminated from the diagnostic nomenclature.
Wikipedia suggests that symptoms of schizophrenia overlap to some extent with severe bipolar and major depressive disorder. No, that's not always the case. The page also says that bipolar is a psychotic disorder....which is not true.
I read the abstract from which this information was derived. Big interpretive errors, I think, on the part of Wikipedia. The pattern of findings emerging from genetic studies shows increasing evidence for an overlap in genetic susceptibility across the traditional classification categories--including association findings at DAOA(G72), DTNBP1 (dysbindin), COMT, BDNF, DISC1, and NRG1. That is all and this research is still in its infancy. The emerging evidence though suggests the possibility of relatively specific relationships between genotype and psychopathology. For example, DISC1 and NRG1 may confer susceptibility to a form of illness with mixed features of schizophrenia and mania.
Yes, I can see what that user was getting at in terms of us talking back and forth and can understand what you've said. And, sure we could email one another but I figured it could be potentially more interesting this way. If someone was interested in our conversation and had something intelligent to add, much more fun. I am sure there is someone out there who has something to offer who could provide fresh insight.
I'm going to set up an email account somewhere tonight and I'll send you my real email, in case you feel more comfortable talking that way...
K, I'm going to look up some stuff on D1/D2 in a while. Not sure if I understand what I'm looking for, but I'll look....and....see :-)
This info will likely mainly benefit you. I am not familiar with any of this...but, here is what I found:
A spatial mismatch in distribution patterns are found between the mu-opioid receptor-1 immunoreactivity and enkephalin IR in the main intercalated island of the amygdala. Discrete cell patches of dopamine D1 receptor and mu-opioid receptor-1 IR have also been identified in a distinct region of the extended amygdala, the interstitial nucleus of the posterior limb of the anterior commissure, medial division (IPACM), which displays sparse tyrosine hydroxylase or enkephalin/beta-endorphin IR nerve terminals. Distinct regions of the main intercalated island that show dopamine/D1 receptor matches (the rostral and rostrolateral parts) are associated with strong dopamine and cyclic AMP regulated phosphoprotein, 32 kDa-IR in several D1 IR neuronal cell bodies and dendrites, whereas this is not the case for the dopamine/D1 mismatch areas (the rostromedial and caudal parts) of the main intercalated island.
*Whew*, no idea what that *really* means....
Anyway, in terms of D2:
Based upon ligands properties it is inferred that D2 distribution is highest in putamen, caudate and nucleus accumbens. This is derived from autoradiographical investigation.
EDIT 20: On second thought, I DON'T see what Nilean is saying. I don't even see how she raises the "good question" you cite. She has voiced an emotional reaction veiling ignorance. It's much easier (and much less intelligent, I might add) to substitute emotion for *thinking*. If she had taken it one step further to *think*, she'd ask: "why am I angry about this post" "why am I not interested" and "why did I read the entire post". Pffftt, her response didn't even deserve my analysis, but there ya have it.
Anyway, I hope you will feel free to continue posting about whatever.....even if addressed to me. Who knows, maybe someone can/will contribute. And, if they don't who cares?!
I'm really dislike when others use the anonymity here to insult other people. It's so, so, so pathetic.
Anyway, that is my rant as well as my 2 cents.
And, BTW: I just sent you my email address.
Bye for now :-).
EDIT 21: I'm more embarassed that I even considered that it contained credibility. Ahhh, man :-). Anyway, that's that. She's gotten wayyyyyy too much of our time already.
EDIT 22: Hey, I saw this program on tv the other night about people going across the border to Mexico to get cheap plastic surgery. Some of these places involved surgeons doing 1970's surgery on people. They weren't abreast of current techniques but (somehow!) it wasn't illegal for them to perform the surgery. If something was botched, US doctors refused to help. Other times, people went to franchised places to get the work done and medical procedures (but, not surgery) were done by people who weren't even doctors. Where I live there are these types of franchises around too. Anyway, they aren't illegal, apparently.
Remember we were talking about uniform standards of care...or, the lack there of?? Would this include what you meant?